Income Tax : The article explains remedies available after adverse tax orders under scrutiny and reassessment. The key takeaway is that choosin...
Income Tax : The Court clarified that mere pendency of information exchange requests under DTAA cannot justify continuing a Look Out Circular. ...
Income Tax : A surge in Section 143(2) notices was triggered by the June 2025 limitation deadline. This explains why cases were picked and how ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that penalty under Section 271A cannot be levied merely because books were rejected and income was estimated. S...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that an assessment completed before receiving the DVO report under section 50C(2) is invalid. All additions and disa...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT allows Sanco Holding, a Norwegian company, to compute income from bareboat charter of seismic vessels under Article 21(...
Income Tax : It has been observed that in many cases an assessee may wish to make a claim which was not made in the return of income filed unde...
Income Tax : We have attached a file in excel format. The file contains the format of various details which normally assessing officer asks As...
Income Tax : Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer failed to establish any mismatch in stock, sales, or accounting records before making...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that constituent members of a JV or Consortium can claim deduction under Section 80IA(4) when they actually ex...
Income Tax : The Tribunal found that full payment, TDS deduction, and transfer of possession established completion of the transaction for capi...
Income Tax : ITAT Rajkot held that cash deposits made during demonetization were fully supported by audited books of account, cash books, and b...
Income Tax : The Hyderabad ITAT held that purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely because the supplier failed to respond to a notice under ...
Income Tax : Instruction No.1/2015 Clarification regarding applicability of section 143(1D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Vide Finance Act, 2012...
The Tribunal held that revision cannot be based on alleged lack of enquiry when detailed verification was already done. A mere change of opinion does not justify section 263 action.
The Tribunal held that Dividend Distribution Tax is effectively a tax on shareholder dividend income and is subject to DTAA benefits. Excess tax collected above the treaty rate was ordered to be refunded.
ITAT Pune held that provision of interest on loan from state government is ascertained liability and hence couldn’t be disallowed under section 37 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal held that reassessment initiated solely on a Revenue audit objection, without fresh tangible material, is invalid. Reopening beyond four years on the same facts examined earlier amounts to impermissible change of opinion.
Where income admitted in section 153C proceedings is accepted in assessment, penalty still requires strict compliance with section 270A. Absence of a specific misreporting charge defeats penalty levy.
ITAT Mumbai held that section 70 of the Income Tax Act allows first setting off the short term capital loss against the non STT gains taxable at thirty percent, and then applying the balance against the STT gains taxable at fifteen percent. Accordingly, appeal stands allowed.
The Tribunal clarified that section 80G(2) applies to donor deductions, not trust registration. Since conditions under section 80G(5) were fulfilled, registration was directed to be granted.
The Tribunal held that an assessment under section 153C cannot go beyond the material specified in the satisfaction note. Since additions were based on different material, the entire assessment was quashed.
The Tribunal held that after the High Court invalidated section 153C proceedings, all subsequent tax adjustments including those involving ₹6.68 crore are unsustainable. Judicial finality bars further action.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, holding that JDA-related income issues had already attained finality. Any attempt to reassess the same income in an earlier year would result in impermissible double taxation.
